the dark side of autism

When the press reported that Adam Lanza had Asperger’s syndrome (part of the autism spectrum disorders) and other unspecified personality problems, the autism community swung into action in a way that is totally understandable. The Associated Press’ headline: “Experts: No Link Between Asperger’s, Violence.”

The vast majority of autistic people are not violent. Autistics like Temple Grandin, the professor who helped create humane strategies for the meat industry, remind us that many people with high-functioning also go on to live full, rich lives of value to themselves and others.

Grandin also reminded us that, for austic people, “The principal emotion experienced by autistic people is fear.

If you cannot read people’s social cues, it’s hard to tell who is a threat and who is not. If you live in a world with social rules created by “neurotypicals” that make no sense, anxiety and fear are natural, perhaps inevitable, responses.

But the suggestion that science has demonstrated there is no link at all between autism and aggressive violence is questionable.

Google “autism” and “aggression” and you will suddenly be treated to a counter world the formal autism community claims does not exist: desperate mothers seeking help or respite from the violent behavior of large, aggressive, beloved autistic boys (and a few girls).

In the name of love and absent decent institutions for these troubled young adults, we are permitting a silent epidemic of domestic terrorism against women that we would not tolerate under any other banner.

And there is more, including accounts of research that is all too consonant with the anecdotes found in the article.

not sure why you are posting an article written by maggie gallagher, as if anything that women says is based in science, reality, or decency.

you dont have to delete the article from lgf (but it would be the decent move considering her history) but by that same token - you do deserve the criticism for even suggesting that woman has any credibility on any issue.

Gallagher's not an indecent person. He specialty isn't medical, but she's not so vile hater. You're off base in this one.

Not a hater? You might want to ask some LGBT people if they agree.

As the article states, Maggie Gallagher is a co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. The SPLC listed NOM as an anti-gay group in 2010 along with the American Family Association (Bryan Fischer), Family Research Council (Tony Perkins), Chalcedon Foundation (Rushdoony), Dove World Outreach Center (Terry Jones), and various other extreme, far-right religious groups.

Apart from her lack of qualifications on this subject, let's take a look at what she offers to back up her assertion that "the suggestion that science has demonstrated there is no link at all between autism and aggressive violence is questionable" and that there is a "relationship between autism and aggression":

1.) Several anecdotes. Anecdotes don't trump science.

2.) An abstract (presumably one out of many) by the 19th European Congress of Psychiatry that included one study of "autism and violence" by researchers in Morocco. No link is provided to detailed results of the study or what the special challenges, if any, might be in Morocco, nor does she offer specifics on the level(s) of violence.

3.) Another "recent study", by whom she doesn't say, nor does she provide a link to the full results of the study so that the part she chose to focus on can be viewed in context:

"The prevalence of and risk factors for aggression were examined in 1,380 children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Prevalence was high, with parents reporting that 68 percent had demonstrated aggression to a caregiver and 49 percent to non-caregivers."

The fact that she declined to provide information on who did the study is a HUGE red flag. She claims it said the prevalence of aggression was "high". Really? High in which spectrum, specifically? Autism spectrum disorders means exactly what it sounds like, a range of conditions, not something that applies to every autistic person regardless of the severity of their disorder or how/where/if it is being (or has been) professionally treated. In addition, those examined were children & adolescents, not adults like Lanza.

What sort of "aggression"? There's a big difference between between yelling, throwing something, and murdering a school full of little children, FFS.

How does this "aggression" compare to aggression in groups of children & adolescents with other disorders?

How does this "aggression" compare to aggression in groups of children & adolescents without disorders?

Like I said, this article is bullshit. It's intellectually dishonest. If it were not, Gallagher would've provided context & documentation.

Of course, there's a reason why right wing groups are focusing on autism for their dishonest claims. It goes back to what I've been saying for days -- it's a diversionary tactic to try to keep attention away from our insane gun culture.

Very interesting that an anti-gay religious right social conservative group is also pushing this line, isn't it?

Of course, there's a reason why right wing groups are focusing on autism for their dishonest claims. It goes back to what I've been saying for days -- it's a diversionary tactic to try to keep attention away from our insane gun culture.

Very interesting that an anti-gay religious right social conservative group is also pushing this line, isn't it?

Religious Right, social conservative groups more and more have a parallel worldview in which psychology, therapy, and the clinical treatment of mental issues are instruments of secularism and relativism. There's a whole subculture of Christian alternative therapy, going from the mild (Christian counseling with your pastor rather than a therapist*) all the way through to the "Raising up a child" corporal punishment system and into the depths of stuff like exorcisms.

A big part of it is the confabulation of moral weakness and mental illness, particular as relates to children and conduct problems.

It's a very interrelated with the pseudo-psychology with which they explain homosexuality is seen as a disorder created by specific home-life conditions that "feminize/masculinize" children. And, of course, the quack methods of "fixing" homosexuality.

* I know excellent Christian counselors who are both spiritual people and trained counselors. But I've also both encountered in reall life and read the horror stories of how the "counseling" format is abused to shame and pressure people...particularly women...into suffering in silence. NoLongerQuivering, the website which hosts tales told by women who've left the Biblical Patriarachy churches/social systems they were raised or married into, features quite a few.

3. Kids with aspergers are still more likely to be attacked than attack.

There's actually a lot of disagreement within the autistic community. Of course, if you read this crap, you'd think we all have our heads up our asses going la la la there isn't a problem. And you're absolutely right that kids with Asperger's are more likely to be attacked than attack themselves. Does the latter happen? Sure but they are more likely to be the victim than perp.

Grandin also reminded us that, for austic people, “The principal emotion experienced by autistic people is fear.

If you cannot read people’s social cues, it’s hard to tell who is a threat and who is not. If you live in a world with social rules created by “neurotypicals” that make no sense, anxiety and fear are natural, perhaps inevitable, responses.

Google “autism” and “aggression” and you will suddenly be treated to a counter world the formal autism community claims does not exist: desperate mothers seeking help or respite from the violent behavior of large, aggressive, beloved autistic boys (and a few girls).

I think there might just be a few google hits on parents of non-autistic children struggling with aggression issues as well. For chrissakes, she really doesn't see the need to distinguish between correlation and causation now, does she?
and that's before even getting into the validity of the "scientific method by google search no. of hits" which seems ever so popular with idiots like these. Sheesh...

I realize it's comforting to tell yourself that someone who does something like this must be far, far away from common humanity but really? At least find someone less offensive to reassure you if you really must stick your head in the sand...

Who writes the article is never any concern of mine. I am not familiar with this author's other work.

The only question of interest is, does she have a point?

But I guess here, it's the other way around. The only question of interest is, who said it?

So maybe I'll address that question. Here's who (else) has something to say about the topic.

LinkLinkLink
And many more, but this is perhaps representative, the last link taking a stance opposite to the other two.

So, I guess now I'll find out if Susanna Schrobsdorff is persona non grata here. How would I know who is acceptable and who is not? I've never heard of her, and I don't know what political stance she takes on anything.

The only question of interest to me is, does she have any credibility? In this case the answer is no. And since you say, "Who writes the article is never any concern of mine. I am not familiar with this author's other work." then you have no credibility either.

Both you and the author of the article you posted slur many good people. One of the three links you just posted has a woman slurring her own child.

Who writes the article is never any concern of mine. I am not familiar with this author's other work.

The only question of interest is, does she have a point?

But I guess here, it's the other way around. The only question of interest is, who said it?

So maybe I'll address that question. Here's who (else) has something to say about the topic.

LinkLinkLink
And many more, but this is perhaps representative, the last link taking a stance opposite to the other two.

So, I guess now I'll find out if Susanna Schrobsdorff is persona non grata here. How would I know who is acceptable and who is not? I've never heard of her, and I don't know what political stance she takes on anything.

That is a fairly naive position to take.

Gallagher is wholly a creature of the RW noise machine. Her MO for many years has been to whip up hate against the gays as part of the RW culture war apparatus. Many of her bigoted and lurid fantasies have been front page topics here.

The fact that she now has something to say on the subject of autism after last week's shooting, when the entire RW noise machine is visibly trying to come up with any alternative to gun control, is most certainly no coincidence.

Scapegoating autism-spectrum people would be completely consistent with her past patterns of sleazy behavior.

So maybe I'll address that question. Here's who (else) has something to say about the topic.

LinkLinkLink
And many more, but this is perhaps representative, the last link taking a stance opposite to the other two.

So, I guess now I'll find out if Susanna Schrobsdorff is persona non grata here. How would I know who is acceptable and who is not? I've never heard of her, and I don't know what political stance she takes on anything.

I, for one, quite clearly pointed out the flaws in Gallagher's argument apart from her political stance, but by all means keep pretending that no one did.

You just swallow any crap you read and can't be bothered to take the time to see if the author is qualified to write about something that broad-brushes an entire group of people afflicted with a neurodevelopmental disorder, yet you expect us to waste time following & reading your links? You must be kidding.

I, for one, quite clearly pointed out the flaws in Gallagher's argument apart from her political stance, but by all means keep pretending that no one did.

You just swallow any crap you read and can't be bothered to take the time to see if the author is qualified to write about something that broad-brushes an entire group of people afflicted with a neurodevelopmental disorder, yet you expect us to waste time following & reading your links? You must be kidding.

You intellectual apathy & dishonesty is lamentable.

It is worth pointing out that the ad hominem arguments against Gallagher on this thread have not been based only on Gallagher's politics. A person can be right wing, or even social conservative right wing, and be a credible source, if arguments are presented honestly, facts are properly respected etc. (pretty rare these days, but still theoretically possible).

Gallagher has shown herself to be a hate-monger heavily invested in the business of dishonestly scapegoating non-straight people for all manner of social ills.

Nothing she says about any group of people that is or could plausibly be marginalized can be taken at face value.

Briefly, ad hominem can be a perfectly valid argument, for a source as deeply tainted as this.

Ms. Gallagher's political views are irrelevant. They are yes repugnant but that's not why she's being criticized here She's being criticized because she's using people on the autistic spectrum as a scapegoat for violence. And as someone on the spectrum that pisses me off. And yes her credibility matters here. What background does she have in autism and autistic research? Let's not make this into poor Maggie Gallagher is being attacked for being a conservative. That's not what this is about. This is about her scapegoating people on the spectrum. It's already a tough enough world as is for people like me and PML. And it doesn't get any easier when people like Ms. Gallagher seem to lump us all in with the Ryan Lanzas of the world. We are your brothers, sisters, friends, sons, daughters, etc. We are you and you are us.